The COVID-19 global pandemic has severely impacted the global economy due mainly to the prevention and containment measures requiring closures of borders, restricted travel, closures of businesses except for essential services, and physical distancing. These measures have severely impacted workers worldwide and seafarers are no exception. It is believed that the pandemic has exacerbated existing safety and health concerns for seafarers and more so, that the international response has been inadequate to bring relief.

Urgent matters of repatriation, excessive working hours, abandonment, shore leave, crew change, mental health concerns and medical emergencies, which are issues that have always plagued seafarers, have been sharply exacerbated. Yet the regulatory regime is constrained in addressing these urgent concerns as governments are relied on to honour the commitments made in the ratification of these international instruments. Governments’ responses to the pandemic have been unilateral and fickle rather than being a coordinated and sustained effort to bring relief to seafarers.

At the height of the crew change crisis in 2020, the International Transport Workers Federation (ITF) issued its support for seafarers to stop working. However, the magnitude of the response that would have been necessary to effect change was not achieved. Two reasons might be that 1) seafarers are not sufficiently empowered by the regulatory regime to discontinue dangerous work; which the COVID-19 working conditions amount to, and 2) many seafarers do not have adequate safety and health representation, as union support in their countries are weak, and even where this might exist, is not readily available at the shipboard level.

The two main instruments of the international maritime safety and health management regulatory regime are the International Safety Management Code (ISM) and the Maritime Labour Convention 2006 (MLC). In normal times, these two instruments have been weighed in the balance and found wanting, as they fail to offer adequate protection to seafarers. The pandemic has shown that if the safety and health instruments are to be more effectively applied, better coordination and cooperation is needed among all stakeholders, as well as more enabling provisions for seafarers to become meaningfully involved in their own protection.

The MLC and the ISM lack specific mandatory standards for seafarers to discontinue work that is dangerous and are weak in their provisions for collective action at the shipboard level. The ISM’s top-down managerial approach to safety and health management thwarts the kind of empowerment seafarers would need to act in their best interest. This is because the ISM promotes individual instead of collective action. Although the ISM claims to have seafarers’ participation, though safety committees, many ships tend to see all seafarers as members of the committee and therefore bring their concerns individually, notwithstanding the power imbalance in the seafarer/shipowner or manager relationship. There is enough research evidence showing that workers, particularly those with precarious work contracts, do not effectively engage with individual mechanisms for airing their concerns.

As the labour standards for seafarers, the MLC also lacks provisions to enable seafarers to act collectively at the shipboard level in their safety and health protection. Seafarers are not enabled to take industrial action or to stop dangerous work under the MLC. Where any such notion might exist, it is vaguely implied in the tripartite approach and MLC safety and health guidelines, which are not mandatory.

Although this is easier said than done, provisions in the safety and health regulatory regime for seafarers to take industrial action would do well to signal to the seafaring work force that the international maritime community is cognizant of the importance of involving them in their own protection as the pandemic has shown that existing mechanisms are unreliable. Such a provision might have assisted seafarers to take a stronger position – as the ITF suggested – in alleviating their severe working conditions to some extent, during this pandemic.

Such provisions would also be well supported by stronger standards for safety and health representation. Current research is showing how representatives have been able to support workplaces, ensuring businesses to remain open while protecting workers safety and health during the pandemic.[1] Safety representatives have been able to monitor and report on workplace conditions providing valuable data for policy makers. They have reported on assisting workers with mental health concerns and other psycho-social workplace issues such as bullying. They have assisted in coordinating safety and health response measures and supporting workplace safety and health committees in managing the pandemic.

While representatives on ships might not have had much influence over whether or not governments open their borders to seafarers, they could have played an important role in helping to coordinate shipboard responses and act as important sources of information and contact points between the ship and shore-based authorities. These activities would have also been more effective if supported by unions and appropriate regulatory provisions. Safety representatives would be the direct voices of seafarers in any collaborative action to alleviate the stresses at sea.

Collaboration among shipowners, unions and welfare organizations is important in lobbying governments to put measures in place to address the pandemic’s impact on seafarers. However, this collaboration seems to end at the gangway. The pandemic has clearly shown the need for such collaboration to be a normal part of shipping operations at all times.

The MLC standards for safety and health representatives is fashioned from land-based approaches, yet it remains underdeveloped and merely symbolic in many instances.

The history of industrial relations tells the story of more conflictual rather than collaborative relationships between employers and workers. The pandemic has highlighted that this does not have to be the case and collaboration is needed in the interest of all parties. This is the basis on which the MLC in particular was developed. This experience with COVID-19 should therefore be used to develop more resilient standards going forward. The pandemic continues and preparations should be made to address this and future crises of this nature. The time is right for the industry to acknowledge the important role of workers and their unions and make the necessary adjustments in the regulatory provisions to support their involvement.

[1] UNITE the UNION (2021). Working through COVID: A report of a survey of Unite Workplace Representatives. https://www.unitetheunion.org/media/3835/unite_working-through-covid_reps-survey-report_word_april-2021.pdf  

Image: NAMMA Flickr/Rev David Rider

The post Enabling seafarers’ safety and health protection: A way forward appeared first on NAMMA.

The International Labour Organization (ILO) is celebrating its 100th anniversary in 2019, and with good reason.  Like a storm-tossed ship, it has weathered many internal and external adversities, some so great that its continued existence seemed in danger, but it has nonetheless survived.  For those of us working in seafarers’ welfare, it is also worth reflecting on the ILO’s work for seafarers – to thank our colleagues in labour for all they have done, but also to think with them about what more there is to be done.  One of these feats most worthy of celebration and reflection is the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC).

A historic achievement

First, the MLC deserves celebrating for the sheer amount of work and perseverance it represents.  It took 6 years from the first negotiation meeting to its adoption, another 6 years to meet the entry into force requirements, and yet another year before it became fully effective.  13 years is a long time to keep fanning a flame, and much of the project’s endurance is attributable to the ILO’s determination to see this “super convention” come into effect. Furthermore, at the same time as the ILO was developing the MLC, it campaigned intensively to build awareness and capacity, undoubtedly encouraging more countries to ratify as a result.

The MLC is also remarkable for its universality.  While there had been previous ILO maritime conventions, they were woefully under-ratified and, as the shipping industry itself admitted, not fully applied.  Labour standards were plunging and maritime casualties remained high. As such, the ILO and its industry partners got together to consolidate these conventions into a “one-stop-shop” set of standards to address poor employment and working conditions for seafarers.  In analysing all the meeting reports, relevant submissions, and related documents, the magnitude of the task was laid bare. As others have noted, negotiating the MLC to adoption was a monumental task and should count as one of the ILO’s great successes.

Benefits for seafarers – food, living standards

The MLC simply coming into effect is not the final determination of its success, however.  The real tests of the MLC’s success must be based on those things it was meant to bring about:  improved employment and working conditions for seafarers and fair competition among shipowners. While it is uncertain as to how much fair competition among shipowners has been achieved (that study has yet to be done), there is some indication that the MLC has contributed to improving some aspects of seafarers’ welfare.

In a recent study examining the MLC standards for safety representation on ships, some seafarers reported that they welcomed the MLC and could point to specific areas where they thought it had improved their working conditions.  The MLC’s effects were particularly appreciated with respect to catering and welfare provisions.  For example, some seafarers reported that prior to the MLC, less attention was paid to the quality and cultural appropriateness of their meals.  In one instance a seafarer reported he and his crew had to buy their own water and food. Another reported that prior to the MLC he could not complain about the quality of the meals, but subsequently, he could go and lodge a complaint and the ships’ cook would have to provide an appropriate meal.  While others were less certain, they did think the MLC partially responsible for improvements they had noticed in catering and other welfare provisions like entertainment and gym facilities.

Areas for work – misapplication, misunderstanding

Seafarers also reported more attention to work/rest hours, but again were uncertain as to how much could be credited to the MLC. Fatigue has been a longstanding concern in the industry and is regulated by instruments other than the MLC. The MLC provisions have undoubtedly added another layer, though, and perhaps this is the result that the seafarers were experiencing.  However, work/rest hours is a contentious issue and not all seafarers are happy with recent developments. One captain lamented on twitter that the MLC simply served to remove overtime pay. This kind of problem is very concerning and needs further investigation – if seafarers are being forced to log excess working hours as rest simply to comply with the MLC on paper, then the MLC is doing them harm rather than good.

While there is no silver bullet for poor employment and working conditions at sea, one should expect the shipping industry to uphold the standards on which it has decided.  They would appear to have done so, at least in some respects, as the concentrated inspection campaign by the Paris MOU in 2016 made the general conclusion that there was proper implementation and compliance with the MLC for the ships inspected.  However, commercial pressures remain which the MLC and indeed the industry have not begun to seriously address.

An important aspect of maintaining the MLC minimum standards is empowering seafarers to exercise the rights the MLC has secured for them.  There seems no shortage of information online in this regard, but still some seafarers in the study had minimal knowledge of the MLC. One seafarer lamented that the MLC is “just added paperwork”.  According to this seafarer, everything was too much, too many “MLC, ISM, ISPS, STCW,…” etc. He and others said they did not know much about the MLC because it was not a part of their daily lives. Another lamented the drive in risk assessment and the burden to find something safety-related to report.  In both these cases and others, I suspect a confusion between the MLC requirements and all the other technical requirements for safety onboard. The study found that seafarers tended to not understand the difference between the MLC and technical standards for ship safety and pollution prevention, even though the MLC differs from these specifically in being meant to protect them.

These findings are cause for concern. Even with educational material online and hard copies sent to ships, seafarers’ education and training about the MLC still need to be improved. Education is an ongoing process and the nature of work onboard may not allow seafarers enough time to access these resources.  Other means might be necessary to ensure seafarers know their rights. Safety representatives may be part of the solution, although they have not so far been implemented as envisaged in the MLC and its guidelines.  Whatever the eventual solution, it is clear that much work remains for unions and seafarers’ welfare workers – in order for seafarers to fully benefit from the MLC, they need to know it not as another burdensome instrument, but as a powerful tool for protecting their labour rights.

A full text of the MLC, 2006, as amended, can be found here.

The post MLC: Mixed blessings for seafarers appeared first on NAMMA.